On 04/03/2014 15:32, David M. Lloyd wrote:
On 03/03/2014 09:45 PM, David Holmes wrote:
We should not introduce anything that allows something that was
guaranteed to be safe by the language, to become unsafe.
Define 'safe'. Because I don't think it's unsafe, any more than
I believe even in the Java library it is common where a publicly
accessible monitor is used to safeguard the integrity of security
critical datastructures. Where monitorexit to become freely available,
that would almost certainly be exploitable.
(Technically I believe the JVM spec does (or did) allow unmatched
locking in some circumstances, but implementations really shouldn't.)
Tom
